Relationships & Family >
Marital Conflicts
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould spousal consent be required before a married woman has an abortion?
Results so far:
| Yes | 66% | 866 votes | Total: 1308 votes | |
| No | 34% | 442 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIf it takes two to tango, a couple to copulate, and a pair to procreate, then not only a wife should decide whether or not to carry a conception to term.
Aside from cases of marital rape and domestic violence, spousal consent should be required for a married woman to have an abortion.
A divorced, single or widowed woman, who has never taken a civil or religious vow of fidelity, respect and honour to a man should not need his consent to abort, even if he is the father, and, in the case of unmarried women, the law has no way of proving, short of post partum DNA testing, the identity of the actual dad in order to enforce paternal consent for abortion.
However, a married woman who has taken a legally and religiously binding vow to her husband, who is in all likelihood the expectant father, should require her spouse's consent, by virtue of the marriage vows she willingly took to her husband.
Marriage is an institution of mutuality, protracted, at least in part, to provide a solid environment for the rearing of children. In society's social consciousness, children are one expected outcome of marriage, and while couples are free to remain childless, the choice to abort and remain childless, or the choice to abort and limit family size, just like every other vital decision in marriage, must be considered and consented to by both married parties.
A married woman voluntarily agrees to share her body with her husband and commits to sexual exclusivity with her husband when she takes her civil and religious vows in marriage. She thus voluntarily forfeits at least some her independent autonomy over her body for the sake of the marriage union. Since the two parties become one in marriage, in spirit AND body, BOTH the wife AND the husband, therefore, must decide how to raise, and if they wish to raise, children that result from this legally and ethically binding sexual exclusivity. Married women should therefore require the consent of the other married party, the husband, prior to having an abortion.
Father's rights are especially important for married men who expect, (understandably) to have equal roles in parenthood. Some fathers feel biologically discriminated against, since they are physically incapable of carrying children themselves, and thus cannot compel the mother to either abort or to take the pregnancy to term. Moreover, family courts make no distinction between willing and unwilling fathers when upholding child support and paternal obligations in family custody cases.
But most importantly, if spousal consent is not a prerequisite to abortion and if a married man has no say on whether or not he wants to be a dad and when he can be one, which is perhaps the most important decision in his life and his marriage, what other serious decisions is he in a position to make in his marriage? If, prior to marriage, a man marries his wife in full knowledge that she wishes to remain childless, then this is understandable and honest. If however, his wife aborts either without his knowledge or consent, thus denying him the opportunity to be a father, then this sham of a marriage (and wife) is cruel and dishonest. Without spousal consent for abortion, the entire premise of equality in parenting and marriage is torn to pieces as there is absolutely no interest in the integrity of fatherhood.
This is startling in a society that claims to purport greater paternal involvement in child rearing and cracks down on deadbeat dads. The responsibility of being a father starts with making the decision about starting a family with the mother, and a husband must be completely free to make that decision in his own marriage, the institution in which the majority of children are born.
In sum, to assign married men the legal and moral responsibility of taking care of their children means also to give them the right to decide whether or not to have them in the first place, and thus to mandate spousal consent to abortion.
Learn more about this author, Paola Fanutti.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
It is true that abortion is a very sensitive issue both culturally and politically. It is also true that marriage is supposed to be about trust and mutual responsibility, and we generally assume that one of the main purposes of marriage is the production and upbringing of children. That said, I don't believe spousal consent should be required before a married woman can have an abortion.
Marriage law has evolved greatly in the past hundred years or so. Husbands used to have absolute rights over their wives; married women generally could not own property, could not work outside the home without the husband's consent, and sometimes could not even secure a divorce. Husbands could often dispose of marital property as they saw fit without consulting the wife first, even if it was something the wife paid for out of her own funds. Women could not even hope for custody of their children upon divorce; before the feminist movement, fathers were given custody by default.
Among the rights a man had over his wife, he had some say over whether she got medical care, and could consent to surgery in her place without consulting her. It was not uncommon, in fact, for men to have their wives committed for mental illness even if there was little evidence of same other than the wife being miserable in a bad marriage.
Nowadays the situation has improved. Speaking specifically to the medical example, I used to work in medical records for the military. In order for someone to be able to pick up their spouse's records for an upcoming appointment, the spouse had to have issued express written consent beforehand and it had to be filed in the chart. I don't know if the civilian world was as strict about it back then, but it is now thanks to the HIPAA medical privacy law. Additionally, no one can consent to surgery for their spouse unless the spouse is incapacitated, and there are very strict standards for what constitutes inability to consent. Likewise, no one can refuse a medical or surgical procedure being done to their spouse, since legally what one adult has done to them medically is not the business of any other adult.
Now, with abortion, when it is assumed the husband should have a say in the procedure, this has several pitfalls. The most obvious is that the husband is stepping in and trying to make a medical-surgical decision for the wife without her permission. In no other instance is this remotely legal. I suppose it could be said jokingly (or not) that a pregnant woman is by definition not in her right mind, but then we don't have any laws limiting a pregnant woman's right to drive a car, gain employment, open financial accounts, or vote, so it would be a tough sell to say that a husband should decide about abortion for his wife because she's mentally ill or mentally deficient.
It could then be argued that it is the husband's duty to protect his prospective child from being destroyed by the mother, and pro-lifers do argue this point-frequently. To understand what is wrong with this argument, consider the relationship between a pregnant woman and the fetus ("unborn baby") she is carrying. She is essentially a life support machine for the duration of her pregnancy.
Can we think of any other medical situations which are equivalent to this? I can think of two: blood donation and organ donation. Now, by definition, in order to donate blood you have to be alive. You can also donate some organs and tissues while alive: for instance, bone marrow, kidneys, and pieces of your liver. (The latter regenerates.) So by definition, when you donate one of these things, you are being someone else's life support.
Can we donate blood, tissues, or organs to our born children? Sure we can; that's a dumb question. Now, here's the rub: Can we refuse to donate to our born children? Not only can we refuse, we can refuse when we are a perfect tissue match to our children, or when refusing to donate results in their deaths. We might be racked with guilt afterward, we might face censure from society for making that decision, but we will never be legally charged with a crime.
Now, in an abortion, if it is an elective abortion not done because of serious problems with the pregnancy, what the woman is saying is that she does not wish to be life support for her fetus any longer. The equivalent in donation terms is that we are legally allowed to change our minds about the blood or tissues or organs we've donated, right up until they're put into another person. Nobody questions this. If it isn't a problem when the prospective "person on life support" is born already, I'm not sure why it's a problem when the person isn't born yet. And innocence really isn't the issue; a one-day-old baby is innocent too, but you don't have to donate anything to your one-day-old baby ot keep her alive, either. You don't even have to breastfeed her. Heck, you don't have to keep her.
It is curious that certain segments of society present the husband as champion of the unborn, whose job it is to protect his "baby" from the depredations of the evil woman carrying it, while she is pregnant but at no other time. I never hear anyone suggesting that a husband should force a wife to donate a kidney to their child. I never hear anyone get into a tizzy that a mother didn't donate a pint of O negative to the kids. Somehow it just never seems to be a deciding factor in marital discord or in divorce. And that's odd, because a born child ought to have a closer connection to his father than an unborn child would. And you would think that somewhere, sometime, a parent refused to be a donor for their child on religious grounds if for no other reason. Muslims generally oppose organ donation, for instance, and Jehovah's Witnesses forbid blood transfusion. But these parents acting on their beliefs somehow just about never make the news.
What is it about pregnant women that sets off so many men's inner control freaks in a way that nonpregnant mothers and born children don't? I wish I knew, but meanwhile, I see nothing fair about treating pregnant women as a separate and unequal class with fewer rights than any other class of human being. Furthermore, if a man's right to produce offspring is in question here, I would respectfully suggest that the best time to discuss this matter is before the marriage takes place, not after your wife has gotten pregnant a year earlier than planned and before she's finished college, or two weeks after she's filed for divorce.
Learn more about this author, Dana Seilhan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Marital Conflicts
- Interfaith marriages are doomed to fail
